Public Petitions Committee, 08 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 8, 2004

Official Report 312KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Nuisance Hedges (PE497)

The first current petition is PE497, from James and Pamela McDougall, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive, following its consultation exercise of 2000, to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to alleviate the nuisance caused by hedges.

At its meeting on 25 February 2003, the committee agreed to keep the petition open and to monitor progress of the legislative proposals in the new session. Following recent amendments to standing orders on the procedures for members' bills, Scott Barrie's proposal for a high hedges bill has fallen, along with every other proposal. The clerk to the non-Executive bills unit has advised that Scott Barrie will be required to produce a consultation paper under the new procedures if he wishes to introduce a member's bill.

I have been contacted by Scott Barrie, who has told me that he intends to introduce a bill on which he has been working. Do members want to wait to see Scott's proposals?

We have been waiting some time for the bill. It is a long time since Scott Barrie said he intended to introduce it. I hope that he will do so quickly. If he does not, perhaps the Executive should consider addressing the matter in the new planning bill that it intends to introduce. Has a similar bill been passed in England and Wales? Is there room for a Sewel motion here? I, too, have constituents with this problem—it is quite an issue.

I think that there has been such legislation.

I am not sure. I understand that Scott Barrie intends to introduce his bill in the new year. The Executive may be waiting for him to do so before it incorporates the measure into its proposals. That is a matter between Scott Barrie and the Executive.

I understand that the UK Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contains provisions on the issue for England and Wales.

Presumably it is not possible to transpose part of the act to Scotland.

That is correct.

Shall we ask Scott Barrie to comment formally on the matter? If he does not, we could ask the Executive whether it intends to do something in this area. Do we agree to contact Scott officially to find out what his plans are and to continue to investigate the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Abandoned Properties (PE602)

The next petition is PE602, from David Cleghorn on behalf of Dedridge community council. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to decentralise to local authorities the previously centralised authority held by the Scotland Office under the planning regulations to recover abandoned private sector properties.

At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee considered responses from Shelter, the Scottish Executive, the Empty Homes Agency and 20 local authorities. The committee agreed to invite the Minister for Communities to revisit the issues raised in the petition in the light of the proposed private sector housing bill.

In his response, the minister states:

"The Executive has made clear in its previous correspondence that local authorities have powers of compulsory purchase for a range of purposes, including for the provision of housing accommodation."

Regarding the proposed legislation, he states:

"We hope that the package of measures proposed would make it easier for local authorities to take effective action where a house is in disrepair or below the Tolerable Standard."

Would members like to comment?

This is a very important issue. We should refer the petition to the committee that considers the housing bill at stage 1.

The bill has not yet been introduced, but we can refer the petition to the lead committee on the bill once that happens. We could leave the petition in its care until such time as it can use the information as part of its consideration of the bill.

It is far from clear what recommendation, if any, we should make, given the evidence that we have. The jury is definitely out on this matter. There seem to be conflicting views on whether the proposal is necessary. However, it would be helpful if the lead committee on the housing bill were able to consider the petition carefully.

Do we agree to close the petition and to refer it to the relevant committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Yorkhill Hospital (Centre of Excellence) (PE655)

PE655, from Mr and Mrs Gill, calls on the Parliament to investigate the resource and other difficulties currently being faced by Yorkhill hospital as a result of its status as the centre of excellence in cardiac for Scotland and to consider whether it is appropriate for the hospital to continue in that role.

At its meeting on 21 January 2004, the committee considered responses from the Scottish Executive and NHS Greater Glasgow, and agreed to seek further information on staffing from Yorkhill NHS Trust and NHS Lothian. The committee also agreed to seek the views of the petitioner on the responses received.

The committee has received details of staffing levels from both Yorkhill NHS Trust and NHS Lothian, as requested. The petitioners invite the Executive to explain the reasons for the 400 per cent increase in mortality rate from a procedure increase of 7 per cent over the three-year period 2000 to 2003; why last year was a bad year and this year seems to be better; and the corrective actions that were taken in response to the 13 deaths in 2003 that were attributed mainly to developments in interventional cardiology.

This is a petition that we must continue to consider. The petitioner has posed some clear questions and it would be useful for the Executive to give answers to those before we do anything else with the petition. Do we agree to refer the three questions posed by the petitioner to the Executive for comment?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Forestry Commission (Consultation Guidance) (PE691)

The fourth current petition is PE691, from Boyd Calder on behalf of Burnawn Residents Group. The petition calls on the Parliament to investigate the Forestry Commission's implementation of its guidance on consultation with residents of areas that have widespread logging, drainage and planting activity nearby.

At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee agreed to invite the Forestry Commission Scotland to comment on a response from the petitioner. In its response, the commission states:

"With the introduction of the new Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme (SFGS) in 2003, an opportunity was taken to strengthen the emphasis on making local communities aware of forestry proposals."

In response to the petitioner's comments regarding the public register, the commission states:

"The Public Register is displayed both on the Forestry Commission's website and, in paper format, at local libraries."

Would members like to comment?

I agree with the recommendation.

The recommendation is that, given the response from the commission, we agree to take no action on the petition.

We have received a full response from the commission, which is welcome.

Has the response been sent to the petitioner?

We will inform the petitioner of the response that we have received. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gulf War Syndrome (PE709)

The next petition is PE709, from Alexander Izett, and calls on the Parliament to initiate an inquiry into the health aspects of and other devolved issues related to Gulf war syndrome.

At its meeting on 15 September 2004, the committee considered a response from the Minister for Health and Community Care, together with an appended report entitled "The UK Government's Policy on Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: Response by Ministry of Defence". The committee noted that the UK Government's response stated:

"There is scientific evidence that some Gulf veterans report a large number of multisystem, multi-organ, non-specific, medically unexplained symptoms as well as recognised medical conditions. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that Gulf veterans' ill-health cannot be characterised as a discrete ‘Gulf War Syndrome' because the multiplicity of symptoms they report are not the same in every case and such symptoms/illnesses are common in military personnel who did not serve in the Gulf."

The committee noted that the response does not examine whether the symptoms were caused by the cocktail of drugs that was used and requested that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the minister for veterans, comment on the matter.

The committee requested the petitioner's views on the minister's response:

"I have made clear that Gulf veterans' illnesses is an issue that I and the UK Government take very seriously and, as one which has always been a Ministry of Defence responsibility, I can see … no merit in the committee pursuing this matter any further."

In response to the Minister for Health and Community Care's letter, the petitioner states:

"I am delighted that the Minister has responded in such a positive way and I sincerely hope that he will indeed look into any shortcomings regarding the NHS treatment offered to veterans in Scotland."

He also states:

"I fear that we will never receive a detailed explanation from the MoD as to what exactly was contained within these somewhat controversial inoculations."

Do members have views on the matter?

For the record, I find the response from Ivor Caplin MP a little bit cheeky and irritating. He needs a wee Public Petitions Committee smack on the wrist. He says that he expressed to Jack McConnell

"serious reservations about the Public Petitions Committee's ability to address a ‘non-devolved' Defence related issue."

The issue was brought here in good faith by an individual and I do not like the cheeky tone of Ivor Caplin's letter. He says that Alexander Izett contacted him but I know that Alexander has had little or no response or explanation from the minister. I want to put it on the record that he is not being appropriate, either in his letter or to Alexander Izett.

I share Rosie Kane's views regarding the minister. He describes the issue as a

"‘non-devolved' Defence related issue"

but it is a health issue and, obviously, health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I can see merit in the committee pursuing the matter, even if he cannot. That is just a comment on the letters that we received from a minister at Westminster, which show how much he thinks of the Scottish Parliament. I hope we can prove him wrong.

Mr Izett mentions in his letter of 30 November that he wanted to submit to the committee

"further evidence of no fewer than a few hundred pages"

but he was told that he could not do that and that he should summarise it. He says that that information would help us in our deliberations. I would like to see that information, because this is an important issue. Although the petition is signed by one man, the issue affects others and many MSPs have had letters from and contact with other sufferers. We should examine this serious issue, so I would like the petition to continue until we have seen the additional information.

I was not going to rise to the bait, but I will. I have a problem when we start to get slightly stroppy about Westminster ministers who say, "Actually, this matter is reserved to Westminster" when the issue is indeed reserved. I would have a problem if Westminster ministers, or for that matter MPs, started to consider and comment on devolved issues. We need to understand what we are responsible for and take action on it. The petition is about the health service and treatment within it, which is something that we are responsible for and should therefore comment on. I do not associate myself in any way with the remarks that were made by my two colleagues about the minister for veterans' response.

I am pleased with the Minister for Health and Community Care's response because, as the petitioner acknowledges, it is positive. He makes a commitment to address any of the shortcomings that have been identified. I do not see how much further we can go, so I recommend that we close the petition.

I have nothing to add to what Jackie Baillie said. I agree with her and I support her suggestion that we close the petition.

I too recommend that we close the petition, but nonetheless I believe that the issue is not being adequately addressed. I was interested to hear Jackie Baillie's point that English MPs at Westminster should not comment on Scottish matters. I trust that she will take that up with her colleagues Robin Cook and George Foulkes.

I do not think that there is much more that we can do as this is a Westminster issue. I concur with Jackie Baillie in that regard.

I do not wish to be adversarial, but I will be. The fact is that a huge amount of work has been done on the issue. A constituent came to me about it early in my time as a parliamentarian and I found that a huge amount of work has been done in the House of Lords, the House of Commons, in America and throughout the world on the global issue of Gulf war syndrome. Massive efforts are being made by scientists, doctors and politicians to address it. Perhaps John Scott's point is that such work is not being done by the Scottish Parliament but, as Jackie Baillie said, there are reasons for that. A huge amount of work is being done—I have an enormous file on the issue in my office. It is unfair to say that people throughout the UK have not been interested. We are committed to supporting our troops.

In the interest of letting the committee get on, I will let you have the last word.

It will not be the last word, because Campbell Martin wants to come in.

There is an easy way to sort out any problems between Scotland and Westminster and it is called independence. If we had independence, we would have a normal Parliament with real powers. I would prefer us not to close the petition yet because the petitioner's response raises a pertinent question on health, over which this very limited Parliament does have powers. He says:

"I fear that we will never receive a detailed explanation from the MoD as to what exactly was contained within these somewhat controversial inoculations."

If our health service is to deal adequately with the health issues, surely we must know what was in those inoculations. Perhaps the slightly arrogant and unhelpful minister for veterans could provide a detailed explanation. He is the relevant minister in the MOD, so perhaps he could provide a detailed explanation of what went into the inoculations.

I do not think that there is a real issue in the committee. We recognised at the outset which matters are reserved and what the point of the petition is, and we took up only the health issue, which is a devolved matter. The views of the minister for veterans are his and he is entitled to them. If we believe that information can be gathered from Westminster that will help us in our deliberations, we will pursue it. I am not perplexed about the minister's views on our ability to write to Westminster on reserved matters. We will continue to do that as and when we see fit. That is not the point of the petition.

As Campbell Martin and others said, the petition is about what the Scottish health service is doing to address the health of Gulf war veterans. On that, the petitioner said that he welcomes the positive response from the Minister for Health and Community Care. If we focus on that, I do not think that there is any disagreement. We can ignore or take seriously the letter from the minister for veterans as we see fit, but it has no bearing whatsoever on our deliberations on the petition. If we can agree that the petitioner is satisfied with the positive response from our Minister for Health and Community Care on the health issues, we can close the petition.

Absolutely.

What about Campbell Martin's point? How can the health service deal with an unknown—

It will still have to get that information from the Ministry of Defence, but that matter will continue regardless of whether we take a view on it. The information will come from the MOD at the behest of the health service. The Minister for Health and Community Care outlined what he is doing in respect of the health service and the petitioner said that he thought that that was a positive response. The MOD situation will take its course. As the minister said, Gulf war syndrome is a serious matter that the MOD is looking into. We have no influence over that. If we agree that Westminster will take care of its business and we will take care of ours, we can close the petition.

I concur with everything that was said about health, but I would like to see the further evidence that the petitioner mentions in his letter of 30 November. He was told that it was far too big for the Public Petitions Committee to look at.

If you want to read the report, you can write to the petitioner and ask for a copy. I do not think that receipt of a 100-page document on medical evidence will help the committee to deliberate on the petition. If Sandra White is interested in the technical details, that is fine; she is entitled to write to Mr Izett and ask for the information. I do not think that the committee would benefit from having the report.

I raised the point because I thought that it would benefit the committee to receive the report.

I do not see how it could benefit the committee. We are not investigating Gulf war syndrome; we are considering how the Scottish health service deals with Gulf war veterans. That is what Mr Izett asked us about and that aspect of the petition has been addressed. If you want to know more about Gulf war syndrome, you should take the matter up with the petitioner.

I still put forward my original suggestion, that we should continue consideration of the petition until we have seen the report.

You can push the matter to a vote, but you are dividing the committee and there is no reason to do so. If you want to see the document, you can write to Mr Izett and ask for a copy. I would rather that you did not divide the committee on the matter.

There remains a question about what went into the inoculations. The convener says that Westminster will deal with the matter, but we cannot conclude consideration of the petition while that question is still out there. Surely the committee could ask the Minister for Health and Community Care to ask his Westminster colleagues—if that is the appropriate procedure—about what went into the inoculations, so that the Scottish health service can deal with the situation.

Your suggestion would be a good one if we had not already done what you suggest. We already put that question to the minister and received a response—

Do we know what went into the inoculations?

We know that the Minister for Health and Community Care's response was described by Mr Izett as "positive".

But what went into the inoculations?

That is not a matter for the committee.

It is a matter for the Scottish health service.

I do not want to get bogged down in the issue. The petition did not ask the Parliament to consider that matter. We wrote to Westminster to try to get as much information as possible from the Ministry of Defence. The MOD responded in its way, but the Scottish Executive Minister for Health and Community Care said that he has looked into the issue, which he takes very seriously. Given what the petition asked us to do and that the response from the Minister for Health and Community Care satisfied the petitioner, I see no purpose in keeping the petition open so that we can have a dialogue with the MOD.

The purpose would be to get answers.

That is not what the petition sought. You can take the issue to a vote, but I would rather that there was consensus round the table about the fact that the petition did not ask the Parliament to investigate Gulf war syndrome, because it does not have that authority. It asked that the health service in Scotland tell Gulf war veterans what it is doing to address their concerns. If we accept that fact, we can close the petition. If members want to take the petition down a different route, we will have to divide the committee on the matter.

My position has nothing to do with the letter from the minister for veterans. He is entitled to say what he has to say; I am entitled to say what I have to say. Mr Izett said that the report contains

"ALL available evidence relating to the ill-health of Gulf War veterans".

Health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The petitioner says that the MM National Gulf Veterans and Families Benevolent Association thinks that the report should be provided to the committee in support of the petition. I am sorry to push the matter to a vote, but we should continue consideration of the petition until we have seen the report.

Sandra White proposes that we continue the petition while we ask that specific question. Do other members want to close the petition?

I move that we should close the petition, but I think that a straight vote on Sandra White's proposal will suffice.

The petitioner's response falls into two parts. First, in relation to the response from the Minister for Health and Community Care, the petitioner says:

"I am delighted that the Minister has responded in such a positive way".

That deals with the health service aspect of the matter. Secondly, the petitioner says:

"I fear that we will never receive a detailed explanation from the MoD".

That is the point that divides the committee. We have addressed the health matters and the petitioner is happy with that. On that basis, we should take no further action on the petition.

We will vote either to close the petition or to keep it open and ask the MOD about Gulf war syndrome. Does the committee agree about what we are voting on?

No. My proposal was that we should keep the petition open until we see the report, which Mr Izett said would be helpful in support of the petition. The petition called for

"an inquiry into the health aspects"

of Gulf war syndrome.

I know what you are saying, but it amounts to the same thing. We are voting either to close the petition or to keep it open.

Yes, but not for the reasons that you mentioned.

Okay. Campbell Martin made a separate suggestion. If we keep the petition open, we must do so on the basis that two reasons for doing so have been given, one by Sandra White and one by Campbell Martin. If we vote to keep the petition open, we will proceed with it on the basis that members have asked for two things to happen.

I am happy with that.

The proposal is, that we close the petition. Are we agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)

Against

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0. The petition is closed.

---

Affordable Housing (PE732)

The next petition is PE732, from Norman Lawrie, on behalf of the royal burgh of Haddington and district community council, on guidelines to promote the development of affordable housing. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the current guidelines on new housing developments to ensure that a larger proportion is allocated to affordable housing.

At its meeting on 26 May 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Executive. In particular, it asked for an update on the Executive's review of affordable housing, together with details of its plans in that area. The committee also agreed to seek comments from East Lothian Council and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

In its response, the Executive states that although the analysis of its affordable housing review, published in July this year

"concluded that there was not a chronic problem in Scotland with overall housing supply, it highlighted affordability and supply problems in particular localities, and problems of low demand and surplus housing stock in other areas."

The Executive also states that

"£1.2 billion will be spent on affordable homes over the next 3 years"

and that it expects later this year

"to publish new advice on Planning and Affordable Housing."

The SFHA response states that, although it has been "encouraged" by the Executive's review of affordable housing,

"the Executive's commitment to this issue will best be judged by the outcome of the current spending review around September this year. Certainly we believe current rates of provision of affordable rented housing are less than half the annual amount required."

East Lothian Council provides a copy of its policy on affordable housing which had not been adopted at the time of the proposals at Briery Bank to which the petitioner refers.

Would members like to comment?

It is helpful to have the document from East Lothian Council, which explains the percentage for Haddington. Given the responses that we have received, I am not sure that there is anything more that we can do with the petition. I do not know the SFHA's view on the spending review, but generally the issues that it has identified for Haddington are covered by the percentage figures that we have received.

I agree with Mike Watson. However, the SFHA's view that the issue is essentially one of land release and zoning is interesting and worthy of note. The real need is for more land to be made available, rather than for more affordable housing to be included in projects.

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Adults with Learning Difficulties<br />(Provision of Services) (PE743)

The next petition is PE743, from Madge Clark on behalf of the Murray Owen Carers Group. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities" to ensure that the needs of adults with learning difficulties who are still living at home and are cared for by elderly parents are given the same level of support and community care opportunities as is given to hospital-discharged patients.

At its meeting on 9 June 2004, the committee agreed to seek comments from the Executive, Enable, the Scottish Association for Mental Health, the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

In his response, the former Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care stated:

"The Executive has made it clear that local area co-ordinators should be available in all areas. Further information will be collected later this year, providing a clearer picture about progress with implementation of The same as you? … I chair the national Implementation Group, which has produced 2 reports to assist implementation of key recommendations … "The same as you? set out a 10 year programme of change and we remain firmly committed to achieving that."

In its response, Enable stated:

"The subsequent difficulty has been fully implementing these far reaching proposals. Whilst recognising that many were medium to long term plans, the Scottish Executive has never produced a clear action plan with targets and timetables which we were led to believe would emanate from ‘The Same as You?' … The implementation group has not looked at the issue of family carers for adults and this petition might provide the impetus for a further report from the group."

SAMH stated:

"the petition refers to issues concerning services for learning disabilities, and as a mental health organisation we do not consider it would be appropriate for us to comment".

South Lanarkshire Council stated that it

"and its partners have taken significant steps to improve services, many of which would have happened without the national review given the Council's commitment to practice in this area and which our investment clearly demonstrates."

The Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability stated:

"All areas should appoint a sufficient number of local area coordinators to ensure that they are available to all families."

Do members have any comments?

I suggest that we invite the Executive to comment on the responses from Enable and the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability. However, I will draw out three points.

First, I welcome the minister's commitment on the 10-year programme of implementation, but Enable has a point. We need a fix on what the targets and performance indicators are and on whether Enable feels that the Executive is ahead of target, behind target or where it would expect to be. It would be enormously helpful to have that detailed knowledge.

The second point is that South Lanarkshire Council's response acknowledges that there are problems with housing and accommodation, particularly for those individuals with learning disabilities who are getting older and currently living with family as carers. That is the crux of the presentation that the petitioners made to us, and given that we have now identified it as a problem, we should ask the Executive whether there is anything that it can do to resolve matters.

Thirdly, as 2004-07 partnership in practice agreements will land on Executive desks soon—if they are not there already—it might be useful to pick up the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability's point that we should ask about who is awaiting housing and support packages, who has unmet needs in that regard and who has a single shared assessment but is still living with their family. If we can ask the Executive to ask local authorities those questions, we will start to shine a light on the issue that the petitioners brought to us.

I recommend that we pick those issues out in a letter back to the Executive.

I agree entirely with what Jackie Baillie says. In addition, I suggest that we write to COSLA for its views, because it will have to carry out much of the implementation. There is also an issue with the long-term funding arrangements. I would like assurances from the Executive on those because, as people with learning disabilities go back into the community, the costs of placing them there are becoming ever greater. There is also an issue with where carers will come from. There is a Scotland-wide shortage of carers and we need some indication from the Executive as to how it will address that problem in addition to those that Jackie Baillie has raised. I also concur with her about family carers. That issue is a ticking time bomb, and we need to get it sorted.

Linda Fabiani is with us. She has followed the issue and will obviously want to comment on the situation.

I would be happy to listen to the committee's views, because I have a lot of confidence that the responses and views of members of the Public Petitions Committee will be similar to mine. I would appreciate the chance to come in at the end, if there is anything that I feel should be picked up.

Jackie Baillie has succinctly summed up the points that we have to make, so if you want to add anything that you want us to consider, now is the time.

I am delighted at the points that Jackie Baillie raised. The committee has very much grasped the issue.

On the petitioners' behalf, I had a meeting with Scottish Executive officials. One thing that came out of that was my feeling that we are back to the old situation in which performance can look good, depending on what criteria are used to measure it, but only when we look behind it do we get the real, human stories of what is happening on the ground. The detailed information for which we are now asking will flush out some of those stories.

I acknowledge that members have some sympathy for South Lanarkshire Council, which has openly admitted that it is not doing enough and that people are not happy. However, the council could have told me that a year ago when I requested a meeting on behalf of people in the community that I represent and the council refused to meet me. That was not helpful and I am glad that the committee has taken the matter on.

I would like the petitioners to be given the opportunity to respond to the responses that the committee received, which would be valuable.

That opportunity is given as a matter of course, but I take your point. We will wait for the Executive's response to the responses of the different organisations and we will consider the petitioners' response to whatever information we can gather. Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Home Safety Officers (PE758)

The final petition for consideration this morning is PE758, which was lodged by Jim Black on behalf of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to place a statutory requirement on all local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding to achieve that.

At its meeting on 15 September, the committee agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive and COSLA. The Minister for Health and Community Care, who responded on behalf of the Executive, said:

"Imposing a statutory responsibility on local authorities is inconsistent with that shared responsibility, and could alter the perception and participation of these partners, and perhaps undermine the progress that has been made in recent years."

COSLA responded:

"Whilst COSLA values SAPC's work, its firm view is that it is a matter for democratically accountable local authorities to determine their own staffing policies and to determine how to address all aspects of community well-being, including home safety, within the context of their own local circumstances and priorities."

I am disappointed by that response. Representatives from SAPC are here today. In the past two months, in one street in a council estate in the community that I represent, three deaths that could have been avoided have occurred. In the past year there have been a number of fire and other deaths in my constituency—it is dreadful to attend the funerals of the people who died. Only six or seven weeks ago, a councillor's son was killed in a chip-pan fire. Such fires are preventable and not enough is being done about the matter. Whether or not a requirement should be imposed on local authorities to employ home safety officers, the issue should be addressed.

I spoke to SAPC office-bearers today, who told me that the organisation independently approached local authorities throughout Scotland to seek the views of every authority. In response, 78 per cent of councils said that they supported the proposal that is being put forward. That puts a question mark over how COSLA reached its view. I am not content with COSLA's response and the matter should be pursued. We should write to all local authorities in Scotland to seek an independent answer.

Local authorities might reply that their officers do not have time for that kind of work. However, a few years ago two environmental health officers sat in the office of one of my constituents for two hours while talking about health and safety. Two officers can be freed up to do that, but we are talking about a much more important measure, because the cost to the health service of dealing with the consequences of accidents is millions of pounds, not to mention the cost in misery and suffering of the people who have falls or are burned to death. There is grief throughout Scotland when such accidents happen, as we know from experience in our constituencies. There is a much more important job to be done and the matter should be legally enforceable. There should be legislation to support the SAPC's proposal and we should write to all local authorities in Scotland for their views.

I support that.

I strongly agree with Helen Eadie. I well remember the good sense that the petitioners made when they addressed the committee—I think that was the first time I attended the Public Petitions Committee. Their proposal is practical and sensible and it sticks clearly in my mind. Helen Eadie has outlined the situation perfectly. I, too, am disappointed by the responses.

I also concur with Helen Eadie and I am grateful to her for putting her views so forcefully. I was surprised by COSLA's comments. I think that a number of years ago, 90 per cent of councils supported the idea of having home safety officers. I whole-heartedly back Helen Eadie's proposal.

I am also disappointed at the apparently conflicting evidence. COSLA appears to take a different view from that of the individual local authorities and we must investigate that. Given that the Justice 2 Committee is considering the Fire (Scotland) Bill, we should perhaps copy the petition to that committee—without losing control of the petition—so that our on-going dialogue can inform that committee's debates on the bill at stage 2.

I see no difficulty in that. Are members happy to write to individual authorities and await their responses, before considering the matter further?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes this morning's business.

Meeting closed at 12:46.